[PATCH v2 RESEND] perf: arm_spe: Relax period restriction

[Anshuman Khandual]

On 27/06/25 2:46 PM, Leo Yan wrote:
> The minimum interval specified the PMSIDR_EL1.Interval field is a
> hardware recommendation. However, this value is set by hardware designer
> before the production. It may not accurately reflects actual hardware
> limitations, and tools currently have no way to test shorter periods.
> 
> This change relaxes the limitation by allowing any non-zero periods.
> This gives chance for experimenting smaller periods.

Is this going to be safe on all SPE implementations ?

> 
> The downside is that small periods may increase the risk of AUX ring
> buffer overruns. When an overrun occurs, the perf core layer will
> trigger an irq work to disable the event and wake up the tool in user
> space to read the trace data. After the tool finishes reading, it will
> re-enable the AUX event.
> 
> Reviewed-by: James Clark <james.clark at linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan at arm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c | 10 +++++++---
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> index 3efed8839a4e..e40e5daa838d 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> @@ -308,12 +308,16 @@ static u64 arm_spe_event_to_pmscr(struct perf_event *event)
>  
>  static void arm_spe_event_sanitise_period(struct perf_event *event)
>  {
> -	struct arm_spe_pmu *spe_pmu = to_spe_pmu(event->pmu);
>  	u64 period = event->hw.sample_period;
>  	u64 max_period = PMSIRR_EL1_INTERVAL_MASK;
>  
> -	if (period < spe_pmu->min_period)
> -		period = spe_pmu->min_period;
> +	/*
> +	 * As per the Arm ARM (DDI 0487 L.a), section D24.7.12 PMSIRR_EL1,
> +	 * Sampling Interval Reload Register, the INTERVAL field (bits [31:8])
> +	 * states: "Software must set this to a nonzero value."
> +	 */The motivation (as explained in the commit message) for using arch permitted
minimum value instead of the recommended (PMSIDR_EL1.Interval) value, should
be explained in the comment here as well.

> +	if (period < FIELD_PREP(PMSIRR_EL1_INTERVAL_MASK, 1))
> +		period = FIELD_PREP(PMSIRR_EL1_INTERVAL_MASK, 1);
Given that FIELD_PREP(PMSIRR_EL1_INTERVAL_MASK, 1) is a constant - should
not it be defined as a macro e.g PMSIRR_EL1_MINIMUM_INTERVAL or something
similar instead of deriving it twice.

>  	else if (period > max_period)
>  		period = max_period;
>  	else